Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 20

"Inconvenient" or "Inconvenience"?

what is the right phrase = sorry for the inconvenient? or sorry for the inconvenience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zylie Morales (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sorry for the inconvenience" is correct. Richard Avery (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're talking about the people described here. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

preventive or preventative?

The term "preventative treatment" is pretty common. When I came across "preventive" in a QA (quality assurance manual I thought it was a typo. But it's not. Webster's has both. Does use differ by country (AE/BE?) or profession or am I just old fashioned? 71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Imo, both can be used interchangeably, but preventative can also be used as a noun, whereas preventive is used only as an adjective, e.g. 'Aspirin is an effective preventative against aches', or 'Aspirin is an effective preventative medicine against aches', or 'Aspirin is an effective preventive medicine against aches'. - DSachan (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Preventive" can be used as a noun too. Actually the Wiktionary entry for "preventive" says the two words are synonymous in all senses. --96.227.54.150 (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See Frequentative#Latin. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Willy nilly redirect

Please see the proposal I've placed at Talk:Willy nilly. I'm a pedant with English language usage <ahem> and it seems to me inappropriate that we currently redirect to Arbitrariness.

If the term is notable, it should have its own (correct) article. If not, a (soft?) redirect to wiktionary would be better than an inaccurate/misleading redirect to an article that doesn't mention the term. --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

NB If you're interested in this, please post there, rather than here. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of -sts ending in English

How do you pronounce words ending with -sts, such as "lists" and "costs"? None of the references I consulted has a special rule for words whose pronunciations end with /-st/ (before an "s" is appended, that is). Applying the rule for words ending with a /-t/ sound, the final "s" should be pronounced as /s/. However, to my ear, "lists" and "costs" are pronounced as /lɪsz/ and /kɒsz/. Am I mistaken? --96.227.54.150 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am British and I pronounce the "sts" fully; lɪsts and kɒsts. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that words like this are pronounced [lɪsː] and [kɔsː] in AAVE, where the length of the /s/ is the only thing distinguishing them from the corresponding singulars [lɪs] and [kɔs]. I think I (as a speaker of non-AAVE American English) might well say [lɪsː] and [kɔsː] in rapid speech too, but in careful speech the /t/ would reemerge. The singular forms would always have the /t/. +Angr 12:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to our AAVE article, words that exhibit final consonant cluster simplification (that is, /-st/ > [-s]) by comparison to Standard English can sometimes take the plural morpheme as if they ended in /s/, so that e.g. tests is pronounced [ˈtɛsəz]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am too and I do too, when I'm speaking slowly. When I'm speaking fast, I'm really not sure: I doubt that I say /sts/ but don't know what I do say. (I'm even less sure about the wonderful [potential/alleged?] cluster at the end of "sixths".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I pronounce it as /s/ (Canadian English). Just a quick note that the -sts set can be tricky for many non-native English speakers, as many consonant clusters can be, but the speakers often simply omit the final /s/ rather than voicing it. Matt Deres (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(RP) I'm pretty sure I pronounce the final ts the same way I pronounce final z in German. I think I end 'lists' and 'Herz' the same way. I can't quite decide how that would best be represented though. 80.41.99.250 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Finger counting

When you count things using your fingers, for your own reference, not for someone else's, how do you do it?

1. Which languages do you speak, and which country are you from?
2. Do you count by folding your fingers, or by spreading them?
3. Do you start with your thumb, index finger, or your little finger?

For me, it's:

1. Korean, South Korea
2. Folding
3. Thumb --Kjoonlee 12:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And do we have an article about this? --Kjoonlee 12:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Took me a moment or two to understand what you were saying :) For me it's

1. Slovene
2. Spreading (funny word, I'm sure there's a better one, but I can't think of it)
3. Right thumb, starting with left thumb for numbers larger than six.

I did notice Asian cultures fold the fingers whereas European ones spread them. Not sure there's enough material in that for an entire article, though... TomorrowTime (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. English; U.S.
2. Spreading
3. Right or left index finger (the thumb comes last).

And I've heard that Europeans usually start with the thumb (as TomorrowTime does) while Americans usually start with the index finger (as I do). +Angr 13:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. English; Canada
2. Spreading (opening)
3. left thumb, right pinkie is "ten", I am right-handed. Matt Deres (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm

1. English (Uk)
2. 'Twiddling' (I have my palm facing me and hand open, I flick my finger forward (then back) and move onto the next for each digit - lets me get past 5!)
3. Left index-finger normally (thumb last)

Not really an answer of sorts but I do wonder if it's just a learned behaviour from your parents/class-mates/teacher. Certainly I don't often count with my fingers but i'm confident that's how I normally do it. ny156uk (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

1. English, UK
2. Spreading
3. Index first.

Many people around me count thumb-first, which always seems counterintuitive to me - you can't open your fourth finger properly without opening your fifth, making an uncomfortable stretching feeling within the hand. No such problem with using the thumb last - you can use the thumb to hold the other fingers down.

Sometimes, for a laugh, I count up to 1023 with my fingers. 90.193.232.41 (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

'Fifth finger'? Do your friends live near a nuclear power station or something? You should only have four fingers on each hand, plus thumbs. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1. UK
2. Spreading
3. Thumb first (right)

If I'm demonstrating a number to someone else, I'd start with the index finger for the reason given by 90.193 above. When counting by myself, I start with the thumb, using the opposable base thing of my thumb to hold my little finger down until needed. This is less of a problem because the ring finger doesn't need to be straight up when I'm just keeping a tally for myself, and the position rarely needs to be sustained. 80.41.99.250 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In Italy:

1. Italian, ITA
2. Spreading,
3. Right thumb

As to the problem of "4", personally I do not open my hand completely indeed, and fingers make increasing angles with the palm (0 for the index-finger, 90° for the fourth finger). This way making a "4" is as confortable as other people's "-4" ;-) -84.221.208.46 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. German
2. Spreading, if pressed to decide between the two options. Otherwise, I touch my fingertips with the index of the other hand.
3. Thumb, with spreading; with touching: 1st hand thumb, 2nd hand pinkie. 85.180.203.40 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. English (could get by in Russia and France); Australia
2. Spreading
3. I start with the little finger of my right hand, working my way towards the thumb, using the index finger of my left hand as the "pointer". Which is odd because I'm right handed. I never noticed that before. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Australian (English speaking)
2. Spreading
3. Thumb, then index, across to the pinky, although sometimes the pinky will come before the ring finger. Each count is accompanied by a slight downward thrust of the hand, rather than pointing. Steewi (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Chinese, Australia
2. Folding
3. Thumb. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm Anglo-American, but spent some time in Europe in my youth. I count by opening from the pinkie. But to specify a fixed number, I raise index then middle then thumb; for four I raise all but the thumb. —Tamfang (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. English, U.S.A.
2. Spreading
3. Thumb (right hand, then left hand), both when I'm counting to myself and when I'm illustrating for others. Deor (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. British
2. Spreading
3. Thumb, right hand.

• Also, when I show 'two', I turn my palm to face the person I am speaking to, as in the 'peace sign'. Otherwise it looks like the V-sign, which is insulting in the UK. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. British
2. Spreading
3. Little finger right hand.

(or showing off I use binary, counting to 31 on one hand. I cannot fully fold the necessary fingers for some combinations but instead fold at the joint.) -- Q Chris (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, privately, I use my thumb on the 'segments' of my four fingers on the right hand to get numbers up to 12, then close the corresponding finger on my other hand to count multiples of 12. This works perfectly for me (upto 48, then the thumb on the left hand will act as the last two to make it 50). Beat that! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. English; Northeast U.S.
2. Spreading
3. Index (continuing towards pinky, then thumb last)

(This is a really interesting survey) 71.174.22.234 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Lys

1. English - US - California.
2. I start by folding my hand into a fist, then open it up with each individual finger.
3. Start with the thumb.

Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't understand what you mean by folding and spreading...

1. English, German. New Zealand.
2. I start with a fist and flip fingers out as I count, like the gentleman above.
3. I start with my right index, then finish my right hand with my thumb, but then start on my left thumb for six...

Is there an article? Do you even have to ask on WP? Of course there's an article: Finger counting! Also, I find Chinese number gestures fascinating. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also check out the links under . And KageTora, does 1023 beat your measly 50? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Well, that sends a resounding '128' to MY system, then! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up. 90.192 mentioned this already...Vimescarrot (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. English, German. British nationality.
2. Spreading (as in, start with balled fists).
3. Start with thumb of left hand, when I get to six I go on to the thumb of my right hand.

--Joe^Talk_Work 20:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a literature on this. (I dont know where to look really.) Not all cultures use both hands to count past five. Some count 5 five fingers and then proceed up the arm of the same hand. There are different arm counting patterns in different cultures. Also, some languages with non-decimal counting systems dont use fingers at all, but rather count the spaces between the fingers (these would obviously be either base-4 or base-8 systems). Some anthropologist has probably written a book that summarizes this information. – ishwar  (speak) 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Finnish, Finland
2. Spreading
3. From left thumb and fingers to right thumb and fingers. Sometimes I touch the middle part of my fingers while counting. --ざくら木 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Learning German and French

Hello, at the moment I am learning German. Though I am still not able to speak it, I can read it pretty well and have a good grasp of its grammar. My next goal would be to learn French. I want to reach good speaking proficiency level for both the languages. Will it be a bad idea to start French in conjunction with German? I know nothing about french right now. So should I wait for french until my german becomes good enough or should I start poking my nose into it right away. Has anyone of you been learning two languages at a time? My roommate is french and has been learning german as well. but she says she has nightmares learning german and it is not a good idea for me to pick up french in tandem with german because I will end up getting confused and at the end will learn none of those two languages.. - DSachan (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is a danger of mixing up the two. Given that you have the opportunity to speak French with your rommate, I would try!! Then, if it turns out to be a too heavy task, you can freeze one language and concentrate on the other. Good luck! --84.221.208.46 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the time and the inclination, there is no problem with learning two (or more) languages at the same time. At a typical German "Gymnasium", you would start with English in 5th grade and with French (or Latin) in 6th grade, plus, possibly, a third foreign language in 8th grade. And German students (I speak from experience) are definitely no smarter than the rest of the world. There may be the occasional mix-up, but on the plus side, there will be some synergy as well: Once you have grabbed the concept of, e.g. case and gender, you can apply your knowledge to both French and German. T.a.k. (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're in a slightly different position from your roommate (assuming your native language is English). German is a germanic language, while French is a romance language, so there is quite a bit of difference between the two. (But not as much as between, say, German and Chinese, or French and Arabic.) English is a little bit of an odd duck. While technically a Germanic language, it's viciously robbed French and Latin for words, phrases, and grammar over the years, so it has a definite "romance language" coloring to it. Your roommate is probably having difficulties with German due to the whole Germanic/Romance divide, while you'll be comfortable straddling it. Due to the differences between German and French, I highly doubt you'll confuse the two - at least not to the same extent someone learning two romance languages (like French and Italian, or Spanish and Portuguese) would. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Her English is even better than mine. So perhaps we are at the same level. But I understand the situation and now hold the opinion that it is indeed worth giving it a go to simultaneously learn both the languages. I give it a try. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience was similar to what 128 above is implying, where learning two Romance languages simultaneously led to confusing lots of nouns. Tempshill (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 21

Pollack

From http://www.smh.com.au/world/strangebuttrue/british-supermarket-rebrands-fish-to-spare-blushes-20090409-a1ux.html:

"To an English ear, "pollack" sounds unfortunately like a slang word for testicles, as well being close to two other words used as insults, one of them racist."

I get the slang word for testicles part, but what are the two other words used for insults, especially the racist one? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We actually just had this question last month. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pollack is a derogatory German term for people from Eastern Europe. The Germans employed foreign workers from Bohemia and Moldovia in the coal mines with the increasing demand caused by James Watt's steam engine. In a second wave other professions followed to seek riches in the West. They were just as "welcome" as the later waves of immigrants from Italy and Turkey. (Similar to Mexican immigrants in the US.) People using the therm were not too interested in getting the country of origin right. Any non-local individual could be called by that name (particular behind their backs.) Several reinforcing historical events kept the word in use as a derogatory name. In several derivative steps a fish also called a Köhler (coal-maker) became known as Pollack, too. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Polack" as a derogatory term for a Pole is used in American English too. +Angr 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In the great European colonization of the Americas Germans and Poles tended to arrive together from the same ports. Expressions from both languages entered into the local English language. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that Polak (or similar variants) is the standard neutral word for a Pole in many Slavic languages, including Polish itself. — Emil J. 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the standard term in Norwegian, too. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that this term (as a derogatory one) doesn't appear to be present in Australia.

A follow-on question for the British English speakers: do you pronounce the first "o" in Pollack the same way as you pronounce the first "o" in bollocks? And, for that matter, the "a" in Pollack compared to the second "o" in bollocks? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To the first question yes: to the second question, yes depending on what dialect you are speaking. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the insults is probably pillock, which is fairly mild. I don't know what the racist one is. Polish people tend to be called Poles. I haven't come across Polak in the UK as a derogatory or non-derogatory term.

As a scouser, 'Polak' sounds nothing like 'pollack' to me. The former has a long 'o' and the latter a short 'o'. However, 'pollack' does rhyme with 'bollock' (singular, for certain people), but I would never even think about it unless it was brought to my attention, as it has been. People are thinking too much. It's the name of the fish! Get over it! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't yet buy the idea that Polak was used widely for Czech and Romainian people in Germany, but this is just a gut feeling. For Poles, certainly (half the Ruhr industrial revolution was done by Poles).--Radh (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In my American dialect, Pollack/Polack as a derogatory term for someone from Poland sounds nothing like pollack, the fish. The "o" is long in the derogatory term, short in the fish. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, if they have decided to call it 'Colin' instead of 'pollack' so as not to offend Poles, I am going to send them a letter asking them to change the name from 'Colin' to something else, as it offends me! 'Colin' is my NAME! :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why our article Pollock starts out: Pollock (or pollack, pronounced the same and listed first in most UK and US dictionaries) .... If "pollack" is the predominant spelling, shouldn't the article title reflect that? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I've only ever seen it with an 'a' in this thread (and the article linked above). It IS usually with an 'o'. The only reason the dictionary lists it first, as I know you are well aware, is that alphabetically 'a' comes before 'o'. The predominant spelling is, in fact, 'pollock'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It says "most dictionaries", but is there any English dictionary where "pollack" would not be listed before "pollock"? My hunch is is that it's about more than mere alphabetical order. If not, it should be deleted. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I know of no dictionary in any language which lists words in order of commonality rather than alphabetical order. Pure alphabetical order - a comes before o. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It refers to the order in which variant spellings appear for a particular headword. The one that comes first is regarded by the dictionary's compilers as the most prevalent. 209.251.196.62 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm getting at. If pollack is listed as the most prevalent spelling in most dictionaries, shouldn't that mean that our article is titled "Pollack" and not "Pollock"? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, and at the risk of taking the bait, I shall say that's a load of pollocks. The word is listed first with an 'a', purely because of alphabetic convention. Nothing to do with prevelance of spelling. I've only ever seen it with an 'o', besides in this thread, as said earlier. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Pollock#Title. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, even if it does sound like a purportedly derogatory word for someone from Poland, what of it? Should we change the language so that no words that sound like or look like derogatory words for other nationalities/cultures/races exist anymore? Phrases like, "find a chink in their armour" and "nip it in the bud" should be changed? PC gone mad! Forget it! It's our language! I'll call a pollock a pollock. I'm not going to call it Colin. That's silly! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a Pole, I don't feel offended at all by the existence of a fish which happens to be called pollack in English. Besides, Polack used to be a neutral term for a Pole in former times. You can even find the word in Shakespeare's Hamlet. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what do Poles call us Brits? Is there a fish with a similar sounding name? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A neutral term for a Briton is Brytyjczyk (masc.) or Brytyjka (fem.). One, fairly mild, term of abuse that comes to my mind is Brytol (plural: Brytole). Angol (pl.: Angole) would also work for those who don't care to distinguish between English and British people. I don't know of any fish with a name similar to either one of these. There is the word angielka which, depending on context, may mean an English woman, a kind of wheat bread, a horse breed or a small glass. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The article en:Polish language has interlanguage links to the following 17 articles with similar names for the language: (1) ast:Polacu (Asturian language), (2) co:Lingua pulacca (Corsican language), (3) cv:Поляк чĕлхи (Chuvash language), (4) es:Idioma polaco (Spanish language), (5) gl:Lingua polaca (Galician language), (6) it:Lingua polacca (Italian language), (7) kk:Поляк тілі (Kazakh language), (8) lij:Lengua polacca (Ligurian language (Romance)), (9) mt:Lingwa Pollakka (Maltese language), (10) nap:Lengua pulacca (Neapolitan language), (11) os:Полякаг æвзаг (Ossetic language), (12) pt:Língua polaca (Portuguese language), (13) qu:Pulaku simi (Quechua), (14) sq:Gjuha polake (Albanian language), (15) scn:Lingua pulacca (Sicilian language), (16) tet:Lia-polaku (Tetum), and (17) vec:Łéngoa połaca (Venetian language). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See also: Name of Poland. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There once was a naive young Pole,
Who worked for his bread shovelling coal,
So he came here as a plumber,
But thought it was a bummer,
He said, 'Sod this! I'll get more on the dole!' --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that would be considered as trolling. In fact, that has been said a few times to me in recent weeks, and I honestly did not have that intent. I always thought trolling meant trying to make a discussion for no reason other than to have a discussion with someone, e.g. bored with no friends just wants to argue with someone. It was just a poem, put specifically in small script to show people that it was meant as a joke and not as an answer to the question. I did not even expect a reply (or someone to reformat it for me with line breaks - thank you, whoever that was). I understood that this was the protocol for Wikipedia. Anyway, apologies if you were offended, but it was meant in jest. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing how that would even be trolling. It's not even offensive unless you consider any mention of Polish people being offensive. I think we have an AGF violation here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not assuming good faith. The limerick is even nice in itself (and actually, I did reformat it), but I think playing on anti-Polish stereotypes is more offensive than calling some fish "pollack". And it did look to me like an invitation to discussion – which would have been completely off topic – like, who's more naive: the one who doles out money for nothing or the one who pockets it? The free movement of labour within the EU is a quite sensitive topic so please be careful with that. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, [unpronounceable name], and apologies to Kpalion for having apparently caused offence, though it was never intended. 'Pole' was the only nationality that I could find that rhymes with 'dole', and, as a side note, I do not know of any Polish people on the dole, and I have many Polish friends and acquaintances. Let's end this sub-thread here, before it does turn into a discussion, and the entire thread gets deleted. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

*looks on in bewilderment at these 'anti-Polish stereotypes' unheard-of in this corner of the world.* --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm more bewildered by what possible humour there was supposed to be in the limerick if it wasn't supposed to 'hilariously' refer to the supposed phenomenon of Polish people coming to the UK as plumbers and then 'scrounging' on benefits after losing these jobs. It's a stereotype that seems to be widely and generally held by people who read certain newspapers, for example. I would actually suggest that KageTora delete the poem and the following discussion. It's probably best not to get into the defences of it. 80.41.42.73 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending anything. Also, this sub-thread (and corresponding limerick) will need to remain until I am sure that my apology has been read. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

堂姑嫂 in English?

How do you say 堂姑嫂 in English? thanks F (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cousin-in-law? (For those who don't read Chinese, the term describes the relationship between a female (A) and the wife (B) of her elder male cousin from her father's side. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well technically yes, but I think colloquially we would say "cousin's wife". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Systema Piezatorum

Hello! What is the Latin term "Systema Piezatorum" meaning. I cannot translate it. Thank you, 79.219.188.10 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Piezatorum" is a latinized participle (masculine, genitive, plural) of the Greek verb piezein (to squeeze or press), referring to Johan Christian Fabricius's collection of pressed insect specimina? If so, it could be translated as "system of the pressed ones" or something like that. I couldn't find any reference for this though. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be an obsolete term for the order hymenoptera, used by Johan Christian Fabricius, Alfred Brehm and a few more of this time span. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I found a reference explaining Fabricius' etymology here (Frédéric Cuvier, Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, Strasbourg & Paris, 1826). It says that piezata ('squeezed') indicates that the jaws are compressed to form a nectar-tube. --Heron (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the etiquette when somebody sends you a 'hello'

Hello, what is the best way to deal with the situation when somebody 'X' comes from somewhere to meet you and says that 'Y' (whom X met recently and you know both X and Y) has sent you 'hello' and X also wishes you a nice recovery. Who should we thank first, X or Y? and what should we say here? if we have already thanked 'X', what is the best way to say thanks and/or hello to 'Y'? Should it go like, 'Oh, I say hello to Y as well and thank her for her wish and thank you (X) also for bringing this hello along' or something like this? Thanks - DSachan (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no strict rule in this situation (that I am aware of). Still, I would probably first thank the person who is present (X), add some expression of gratitude towards Y, and then promptly return my focus to X. Of course, it depends on one's relationship with both X & Y, as well as their relationship with each other. If X loathes Y, then it is not necessarily a good idea to express any gratitude towards Y in X's presence. If both you and X practically worship Y, and Y has much higher status then either X or you, then it may even be appropriate to direct most of your gratitude towards Y and practically ignore X's comment. If you have equal respect for both X & Y, and X & Y have a good or neutral relationship with each other, then I would focus mostly on X, as he is the one who actually came to visit you, although I would earnestly acknowledge Y's 'hello' as well. Something like, "Thank you so much, X, and do say hello to Y for me next time you see him/her. I really appreciate your coming here to visit me." ...or if the situation is less formal: "Thanks X, and you'll have to say hi to Y for me later. I really appreciate you coming over to visit. It means a lot." 71.174.22.234 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Lys

My understanding is that in diplomacy, when dignitary A1 expresses condolence/well wishes etc on behalf of dignitary A2 and the people of Country A to dignitary B1 (and through dignitary B1, to dignitary B2 and the people of Country B), then dinigtary B1 should express his or her thanks first to dignitary A1, and through him/her, to diginatry A2 and the people of country A. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Name

What is the earliest (recorded) instance of the name Asad/Assad? 723 A.D. is the earliest I can find... 71.174.22.234 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Lys

Asad ibn Hashim would have been born sometime in the second half of the 5th century, but I can´t find any details. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of verbal particle "up"

What is etymology of verbal particle “up” in expression “screw up”? Sirrom1 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Screw up" originally meant, "to raise prices", so the "up" part indicated the upward rising motion of prices. OED: 1631 W. BRADFORD Hist. Plymouth Plant. (1896) 357 He scrued vp his poore old father in laws accounte to aboue 200li and brought it on ye generall accounte.

When someone screws up your payments (raises the prices you must pay), it botches (screws up) your plans, thus giving rise to the modern definition.

In World War II, the particle "up" used in combination with a verb made an impact on slang. Louse up, ball up, gum up, mess up, foul up were among the less offensive forms meaning to botch, to make an egregious mistake, to bungle, to err repeatedly. Screw up, in this sense, is first found in a December 1942 issue of Yank, and was further popularized in the 1951 Catcher in the Rye, the famed novel by J. D. Salinger: Boy, it really screws up my sex life something awful. The verb is both transitive (screw up my sex life) and intransitive (I really screwed up).

71.174.22.234 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Lys

Applause from the Peanut galleries--Radh (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

'Screw up' has had various literal and metaphorical meanings over the centuries. But without some strong and specific evidence, there is absolutely no reason to relate one such ('raise prices') to another ('make a mess of'). I'm sure that the answer to the question is the meaning of 'up' given as no. 18 in the OED: "18. To or towards a state of completion or finality. (Frequently serving merely to emphasize the import of the verb.) a. With verbs denoting consuming or destroying." --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

english mother tongue

Hello Community, i started to edit some articles in the german wikipedia.
Now i looked at the english part about my home valley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montafon
My question to the community:
Is it a big problem, when my english is not very stylish and if there are some grammatical mistakes?

Thank you Bernd
(I could improve my english and could give some knowledge to other...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csae2930 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There were no serious mistakes that I could see (no hyphen for mountain biking), but I did rearrange it a bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Most successful English writer

Who is the most successful English writer? I mean in accordance to most sold books, most awards winner etc. Please keep in mind the 1st writer to the present writers. I know this may be difficult, but that`s what wikipedia is meant for, I hope! 59.103.63.74 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the 1st writer to the present writers"? Are you saying we should consider all writers in English, from the dawn of the language through to the present day? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotta go with John Wycliffe, I think. He didn't win any awards that I know of, but he's the clear winner on sales if you include revisions to his work, and it's highly doubtful that there's ever been a more influential writer in English.

But Wycliffe was primarily a translator, so he might be excluded on that basis. According to our list of best-selling books, Dickens wrote the most successful book to be written in English. Within the academy, of course, Shakespeare's preeminence is unquestioned. John M Baker (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ridiculous, this, but I think J.K.Rowling should be given consideration, considering kids are beating each other up outside bookshops just to get signed copies. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

JK Rowling is currently the most successful, with wealth of GBP 499m putting her 101st in the Sunday Times Rich List[1] ahead of all other writers. Barbara Taylor Bradford (GBP 166m) is second and Jackie Collins (GBP 90m)third.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So what about the awards? I couldn't find a complete list of awards for Rowling. I counted 13 awards for Harry Potter books, but that paragraph writes "among other", so there are probably more. I counted 20 awards in Philip Roth's article and 25 awards for Stephen King I have no idea whether those list are complete either, and it is likely that there are other authors who have won more, but I'm posting it here and waiting for better bidding ... ---Sluzzelin talk 10:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Cough*Shakespeare*Cough*. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It really will vary depending on criteria. Financially-successful from book sales will quite likely be different to award-winners (it's common for mainstream and critical support to be different in the arts). Similarly people like Shakespeare, Dickens (though less so) were in an era where your book wasn't sold around the world to millions of customers, it didn't get the rights bought for the movie from hollywood etc. Ultimately in terms of 'most important' then from an academic perspective i'd reckon on maybe Shakespeare, Dickens or perhaps Chaucer. Finance wise I think the income-streams are so much more open these days so it's hard to compare with older writers but obvious Rowling has made a fortune from her very popular books - as has Jacqueline Wilson and Roald Dahl was a very popular children's book writer when I was younger (Matilda, The witches, Boy,Fantastic mr fox etc.) ny156uk (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The correct spelling is "Financially successful" without a hyphen. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 4.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure the manual of style really applies - fair enough if my input was in an article, but the reference desk is pretty informal (perhaps that's why I prefer to contribute here away from the fussiness of articles that get many views). ny156uk (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you click on "history" at the top of this page, then click on "Page view statistics", you can see the following statement: "Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language has been viewed 13963 times in 200904." For comparison with other pages, there is Wikipedia article traffic statistics with "Most viewed articles in 200808". -- Wavelength (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

From the "toolbox" on the left-hand side of most pages, you can follow this chain of links: Special pages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > Monthly wiki page Hits for en.wikipedia ("Page hits per day for en.wikipedia in month 2009-04"). -- Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, King James I of England has his name on several editions of a particular book. In terms of name-recognition vs. personal effort expended, I suspect he'd win! —Sladen (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he didn't write it. He would be more like a publisher. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

May 22

Expedition to Manchoukuo

It is a book title: 第一次満蒙学術調査研究団報告 Can anyone transliterate this Japanese title into Latin letters and translate it into English, too? 79.219.189.113 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

'Dai Ichi Ji Man Mou Gaku Jutsu Chou Sa Ken Kyuu Dan Hou Koku'. It means 'First Report From the Research Group on the Mongolian Academic Investigations Survey', or something to that effect. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't "the first report" be 満蒙学術調査研究団第一次報告, though? I don't know the background, but if there were several of these research groups then this could also be understood as "the report of the first [...] group". (Bear in mind, I'm not a hundred percent sure of this interpretation myself.) TomorrowTime (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You are right. Sorry, I was in a hurry to get my work permit for Korea. I will concentrate more from now on. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "満" refers to Manchuria. "満蒙" is in the titles of some Japanese Wikipedia articles. In those contexts, "満蒙" refers to a geographic region that includes Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. Someone who understands Japanese please confirm this. --173.49.10.162 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It refers mainly to Mongolia (or Inner Mongolia), but can include Manchuria. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Kagetora: And that is what I mean - I have got another transliteration, very similar to yours: Dai ichiji Mammō gakujutsu chōsa kenkyūdan hōkoku. Which one is correct now?

And if it was the second, what have I to change in the Japanese title: Second Report from the Research Group on the Mongolian Academic Survey ? 79.219.189.113 (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

'Second' would be done by replacing 第一次 with 第二次 (dainiji). --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, you can google it easily. There's even a sypnosis...--K.C. Tang (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the transliterations, both are correct. Kagetora's version is written kanji letter by letter and OP's version is a word by word transliteration. What else do you want to know? Oda Mari (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

KT's is also a bit more literal in representing long vowels with an extra vowel letter, corresponding to how they would be written in kana, rather than with a macron. —Tamfang (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much! Can anybody translate the term "Second Report from the Research Group on the Mongolian Academic Survey." into Japanese? 79.219.189.113 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked the database of National Diet Library. The page is here . It's 第一次満蒙学術調査研究団報告　第２部. Oda Mari (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this entry does count to the First Report, too. Maybe there is no second report, but I am interested in the then hypothetical translation of "Second Report from the Research Group on the Mongolian Academic Survey." into Japanese, (refering to the translation of the First Report). 79.219.189.113 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand something. 第一次/daiichiji is not the number of report, but it means the first survey group as TomorrowTime pointed out above. BTW, I am a native Japanese speaker. Oda Mari (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I am very sorry! You are right! Can you translate the entry of National Diet Library to get a correct translation? 79.219.189.113 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Click the external link provided by K. C. Tang. I think that the official translation of the title. Oda Mari (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's Report of the First Scientific Expedition to Manchoukuo. Ignore the "Section IV.Part I." part. The Japanese title you provided above doesn't have that part. Oda Mari (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But in that external link, in the title "第一次満蒙学術調査研究団報告" are no kanji meaning "Manchoukuo" . That's confusing. 79.219.130.158 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why I translated it as the Mongolian region (including Manchuria). --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Then the translation would be Report of the First Scientific Expedition to Manchuria and Mongolia or Report of the First Scientific Expedition to Manchukuo and Mongolia. And the NDL page is here. The report are divided into six parts. Oda Mari (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the 蒙 in the report title might be Mengjiang. If so, the title would be ...Manchukuo and Mengjiang. Then the linked title is not necessarily wrong because Mengjiang was part of Japan then and could be thought as a part of Manchukuo. Oda Mari (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mengjiang was a puppet state, wasn't it? As was Manchukuo? They were never formally annexed by Japan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor wording, but both of them were controlled by Japan, weren't they? Anyway, I think Report of the First Scientific Expedition to Manchoukuo is the official translation in English. 満 should be the shortened form of 満州国. See this result of G search. See also the map then and think about the report was written in 1934 to 1940. Oda Mari (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Display of Kanji

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16799305@N05/3554372076/

I have a little request: In this link above is a marked term of Japanese Kanji. I could not find the second kanji in the charmap to input it into the computer. Can anybody display this kanji here so that I can copy and paste it into the computer? Thank you, 79.219.189.113 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

似我峰上科 TomorrowTime (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 79.219.189.113 (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The above sentence is incorrect, it should be 似我蜂上科, it is a type of wasp and should therefore have the insect radical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.252.207 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What is meant when someone signs a message <name> sends?

I work with Fred. Fred is mostly unintelligible. All of his e-mail is overly formal, unclear and seems to be an effort by him to just work in big words so it makes him sound (to him) as if he knows what he's talking about.

He ends the body of every message with "Fred sends". He used to be in the military and so I think he is just trying to make sure we know that.

Can anyone explain exactly what is meant by ending a message with <name> sends? Can anyone shed some light on its origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.182.3 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with ending a message in this way, and I don't think it's Military-Speak. Tempshill (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I used to have a friend in Japan who used to sign all of his emails and SMS messages with 'Yuusuke deshita' (Yuusuke was his name, and 'deshita' means '[that] was'). It was his way of standing out and being different. Probably the same with Fred. Not military-speak at all. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever considered asking him why he ends his messages in that way? You may find he's not the way you appear to think Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Might it be the electronic equivalent of those pads of paper that have printed at the top, "From the desk of <name>"? I have a friend who mischievously wrote back to "Dear desk of <name>". BrainyBabe (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

May 23

German sentence

I'm trying to translate the sentence "de alles an dich hat gewandt", but I don't know any German, so all I've got is "the all on you have skillful", which doesn't make sense in context. It's part of a poem on a gravestone for a child. 71.220.104.207 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This document might be of interest. It contains the text of headstones from a "Pfluger Cemetery" in Pflugerville, Texas. Apparently, an Eagle Scout chose to transcribe the headstones for his service project. Anyway, the sentence "Der alles an dich hat gewandt" appears in there (on a child's grave, no less), but it only makes sense if you know the rest of the poem. It (roughly) translates as "Who has [adroitly/skillfully] done everything for you", and refers to Jesus. Xenon54 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! 71.220.104.207 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Slight disagreement: gewandt here is the past of gewendet (an) => addressed to. Probably here meaning something like "lavished all his attention on you". Skillful would be use as an adjective rather than a verb and would require a "to be" (ist) rather than a "have" (hat). 71.236.24.129 (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 71.236. As a native speaker I would interprete the phrase as "who has provided all (good things in life) for you". It is an archaic use of a verb which is old-fashioned or, at least, a bit formal in modern usage (umwenden = to turn around, sich an jemand wenden = to address some person). Some Googling indicates that it it may still be used in Protestant (Lutheran) prayers in the sense given in the original verses. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

New England Portuguese

I've heard (secondhand, unfortunately) of some interesting dialectal forms used in the Portuguese community in southeastern New England - for example, something that sounds like "portugui" instead of "português", and something that sounds like "chouris" instead of "chouriço". Does anybody here know anything about the peculiarities of New England Portuguese? (I've heard that many of the Portuguese immigrants here came from the Azores and Medeira, if that helps.) --Lazar Taxon (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For information about the people, you can see Portuguese American, Luso American, The Portuguese in New England - Page 1, and The Portuguese in New England - Page 2. --Wavelength (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You can download a dissertation in PDF format from PORTINGLES, THE LANGUAGE OF PORTUGUESE-SPEAKING PEOPLE IN SELECTED ENGLISH-SPEAKING COMMUNITIES (MASSACHUSETTS). -- Wavelength (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 January 21#Varieties of English spoken by continental Europeans (specifically, the last comment in that section) and Porglish. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In Mystic Pizza, one of the characters refers to herself as a "Portuguee girl", which I take to be a back-formed singular from "Portuguese" re-interpreted as a plural "Portuguees". That could be the origin of the "portugui" form you've heard. +Angr 08:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The town I grew up in (RI) had a sizable Portuguese population. I heard "Portagee" a lot, but it was considered rather rude. We pronounced the sausage like "shihDEECE." Catrionak (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation of Ching Hai?

I am copying the below question from Talk:Ching Hai#Translation of Ching Hai?. LadyofShalott 14:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the translation of Ching Hai from "pure ocean" to "green/blue sea" on the basis that Ching Hai is the Wade-Giles spelling of the Hanyu Pinyin Qīnghǎi which apparently does translate to green/blue sea. My edit was reverted with an unhelpful remark "the ching hai is 清 not 青. Another ignorant edit without fact checking". Despite the pinyin spelling in Ching Hai and Qinghai being identical. Can a native Mandarin speaker provide some impartial clarity? 59.167.40.111 (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a native mandarin speaker, but I do speak Japanese, and since the Japanese use the same ideographs that the Chinese do, I believe I can answer your question. While the pinyin spelling is the same, those are two different characters with two different meanings. 青 means pure, pristine, and 清 means green/blue. So the revert was correct, even if the rationale was less than corteous. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You have it backward. (Your point is correct, but you got the two characters swapped in your explanation.) --173.49.10.162 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blush TomorrowTime (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. 青 is blue-green, 清 means clear/pure. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

青 can, in some contexts also mean red or black, according to my Chinese/Chinese dictionary. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Generic name for Aspirin-type medication

I'm currently working on a game project where one of the many things the player can do is to drink alcohol (which has certain beneficial effects but also some side effects). To counteract the side effects, the player has to get and use Aspirin pills; however, I don't want to use the name "Aspirin" in the game as that's a trademarked name. So...what is the generic name for Aspirin-type pills in their specific role as anti-hangover medication? My native German uses what literally translates to "headache pills", but I don't think that expression exists in English...would analgesic be the correct word? I'm not looking for a word that generically means "painkiller", but for a more specific word meaning something against hangovers. Thanks a lot, Ferkelparade π 16:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

plink plink fizz = Alka Seltzer (it's the sound they make as they dissolve in water) --TammyMoet (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike in Germany, aspirin is not a trademark in most of the English-speaking world. 87.113.4.137 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Aspirin (USAN), also known as acetylsalicylic acid (Template:Pron-en, abbreviated ASA), is a salicylate drug, often used as an analgesic to relieve minor aches and pains, as an antipyretic to reduce fever, and as an anti-inflammatory medication.

United States Adopted Names are unique nonproprietary names assigned to pharmaceuticals marketed in the United States. Each name is assigned by the USAN Council, which is co-sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA), the United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA). -- Wavelength (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In many countries (including the US and UK) Aspirin is not trademarked, but that's irrelevant if it is trademarked where you are. I would have said the generic term in English for what Aspirin is is "analgesic" or "painkiller", but you've ruled those out. If you want a generic term for a hangover remedy, I'd just go with "hangover remedy". That could include things that are not medicines, so another choice would be "hangover medicine" or "medicine for a hangover". --Anonymous, 17:48 UTC, May 23, 2009.

You could abandon Aspirin altogether and use other common hangover drugs like paracetemol, ibruprofen or codeine. Nanonic (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an old superstition that the cure for rabies(?) is "the hair of the dog that bit you"; by the magic of humorous metaphor, "hair of the dog" is a drink taken to ameliorate (or at least postpone) a hangover. You could translate that phrase, or some analogous concept in German, to Latin. Saeta canis. —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Hair of the dog" is, necessarily, an alcoholic drink. So it's no synonym for aspirin. Further, "hangover remedy" in the context of alcohol may suggest any alcohol or perhaps some specific, ghastly alcohol like Fernet, so that's out too. Paracetamol is not aspirin but (for better or worse) it's used in much the same way and the name is widely known. Is it a registered trademark in your part of the world? -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no effective real-life hangover remedies; why not just make up a name for this fictitious thing you want to include in your game?. "Hang-over Ease" or "Sober Solution" or "Drunkard's Friend" or something. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Katzenjammer Pills? Deor (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Where I come from -- and that must be case in Germany too -- Sauerkraut juice is considered the best cure for hangover. See Sauerkraut#Health benefits. Not so sure about English culture (though http://www.google.com/search?q=sauerkraut+hangover gives decent 20,000 hits). No such user (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Central and East European cuisines / folk medicine have a wealth of traditional cures for hangover, mostly some sour non-alcoholic beverages. Apart from sauerkraut juice, these include Polish-style pickled cucumber juice, kvass, kefir and buttermilk. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I particularly like the sauerkraut and pickles ideas, I'll see if I can work that in. -- Ferkelparade π 13:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"An Eurostar train"; words starting with a vowel but a consonant sound

Eurostar is an operator of high-speed railway services, branded under the same "Eurostar" name. They also own a number of trains, an Eurostar train being a singular example one of these. Or should this be "a Eurostar train"? Note that this situation does not occur particularly frequently as Anglo/French day-to-day usage prefers "to take the Eurostar" (in the same way that it is invariably the Concorde). —Sladen (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A Eurostar sounds best, because of the y sound. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Invariably the Concorde"? I've never seen it used with a definite article in English. 87.113.4.137 (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen it called simply Concorde, neither a Concorde nor the Concorde. Anyway, the use of an seems - from all the comments of similar discussion on previous topic on this desk - to be purely for ease of speech. Thus, if it sounds like it needs one, add one. If it doesn't (as in this case), don't. "A Eurostar" would be appropriate. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as "Concorde" rather than "the Concorde" or "a Concorde". See paragraph 4 of the article Concorde. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's "a Eurostar", just as it's "a Euro", "a European", and even "a Yorkist". Otherwise it would tend to be interpreted as "a Neurostar", which sounds more like a doctor bravely trepanning a sick Australian child with a handyman's drill. Karenjc 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Napples and Nuncles were both renamed due to this type of thing, apparently...though I can't remember where I heard that. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See Rebracketing. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither apple nor uncle originally began with /n/, but adder did, iirc. —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How topical! Would this guy qualify? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We always called it "the Concorde", in Canada. I didn't even know there was more than one, until one of them crashed. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's "a Eurostar train" if you are referring to a particular train, and "the Eurostar" if you are referring to the service in generlaly, because regardless of which particular train you catch, you are taking the service collectively known as "the Eurostar", just as you could take "the Piccadilly Line" or "a Piccadilly Line train", "the Metro" or "a Metro train/service".

And it's "a" Eurostar train not "an" Eurostar train because the word starts like a /j/ ("y-") sound, a consonant sound. As has been pointed out above, you only use "an" if you need it for the speech not to sound weird. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

May 24

Indefinite Articles In Example

Are there any rules for or against the use an indefinite article when used in the context I shall describe? I have noticed the usage, especially when people make comparisons using examples. As an example of this, if I want to compare my child to various others, I might say "compare Peter to a Tom, a Dick, or a Harry". The intention seems to be that whilst a specific example is given, we want to compare to all kids who are like Tom, Dick or Harry, and not specifically to them alone. My problem here is that the indefinite article by nature lacks specificity, and yet we are being specific when we provide the example names. The wikipedia article on indefinite articles also implies that it should be used where new articles are introduced.--41.15.135.171 (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about rules, but this device tends to be used in relation to well-known names. For example, "While John Garfield didn't have the presence of an Orson Welles or the breadth and depth of a Gregory Peck, he was neverthless a highly regarded actor and a huge box office drawcard in his day". That sentence could just as well have said "While John Garfield didn't have the presence of Orson Welles or the breadth and depth of Gregory Peck, ...". But you're right, the first version is comparing Garfield not just with Welles and Peck, but with any actors who had the characteristics of Welles and Peck, and using their names as archetypal examples. A certain small child would not generally be considered an archetypal example of anything much, but I'm sure contexts could be found where this would apply. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

An added twist is that the phrase "Tom, Dick or Harry" carries the subtext of "yer average bloke", so by using these names you're playing on this subconscious association. Use of the indefinite article emphasises this association - ie it's not anybody you know called Tom, Dick or Harry: it could be anybody called Tom, Dick or Harry. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, a Tom, a Dick, or a Harry sounds very forced; I'd say a Tom, Dick, or Harry. However, this doesn't really impact your question. It's "a", because it means any (indefinite) person named Tom, Dick or Harry (or, by implication, anything else). We're not being specific when we give the names, because of our understanding (and our expectation of the understanding in the listener) that there are Toms, Dicks and Harries (however spelled) by the thousand. ¶ Come to think of it, I tend to use it with an indefinite quantifier: "If my daughter stays out all night she's likely to get herself knocked up by some Tom, Dick or Harry"; "When I think of the buffoon who's the Prime Minister of [nation] I suppose that any Tom, Dick or Harry can get elected and pretend to run a country." ¶ Hmm, this is interesting. Can we say Every Tom, Dick or Harry" or (of course with a different meaning) are we limited to "Every Tom, Dick and Harry"? We can use no: "No Tom, Dick or Harry is going to [...]" And even with that, I think. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the phrase "Tom, Dick or Harry" is that they are very common names, so using them isn't being specific. "A Tom" could be any person called "Tom", of which there are many (myself included!). --Tango (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May 25

French translation needed

Does this plaque say something to the effect that Cafe Procope (Le Procope) was the world's first cafe or the world's oldest continually functioning cafe? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

translation available here:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cafe_Procope_plaque.jpg#Summary Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Old/Middle English meaning of Chel

What does the "chel" in "Chelsea" mean?

I've heard lots of name definitions for "Chelsea", like "sea port", "chalk landing place", and "limestone (cliffs) by the sea". I understand the port/ocean connection ("sea"), but "chel" no longer holds any meaning in English. Was it a word in Old or Middle English? What did it mean? It has the same initial sound as "chalk", which would tie into the "chalk landing place" name origin. But I can't find "chel" in any Middle or Old English dictionaries...

I did find some possibilities, but I don't know if any fit.

In Old English

• • • "Cele"/"Ceole"/"Céo"/"Céole" can mean "the beak/keel of a ship"
    • "Ceolas" or "Ciele" can mean means "cold winds" or "cold"/"chill"

In Middle English

• • • "Chelle"/"Chele" can mean "the bow of a ship"
    • "Chele" can mean "cold"/"chill"
    • "Chele" can mean "a bowl", "incense vessel" or "drinking cup"

Which is it? Or is it something else?

71.174.26.231 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Olivia

See paragraph 2 at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Chelsea,_England. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of Chelsea, London#History. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Room, in Placenames of the World: Origins and Meanings, agrees with the etymology given in the WP article cited by Wavelength above. To clarify, I meant that he agrees with the derivation from cealc and hyð, not with Norden's suggestion. Deor (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the supposed element sea involves false etymology. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

and often represents either OE 'ea' (stream) or 'ey' from Norse word meaning 'island' --ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Now if I could only understand why Elvis Costello didn't want to go to Chelsea... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because he supports Liverpool :) Grutness...wha? 01:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

but dee doo, doh, don't dee, doh? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 26

Plural

What's the plural of fait accompli? Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"faits accomplis", in English and in French. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Now I know where to look next time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew memorial

We've had the draft text for my mother's memorial from the monumental masons, and it has פ״ט at the top instead of the פ״נ I expected. I wanted to know what this stood for, and went searching on the net. I've found plenty of instances of פ״נ and an explanation that it stands for פא נקבר (not sure about the spelling) "Po nikbar" - "Here is buried"; but I have found only a few examples of פ״ט, and no explanation. The mason was unable to tell me - he said it was a "female form", but though there are feminine forms beginning with "t-", they are with ת, not ט, and in any case would be imperfective. Can anybody tell me what פ״ט stands for, and why it is sometimes used? --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the abbreviations, but in the grammar of the Hebrew language niqberet נקברת is the feminine singular form corresponding to the masculine niqbar נקברת; these are what is known as Nif'al participle forms. The "t-" prefixed form would be tiqaber, and would mean "she will be buried" or "you (masc.sing.) will be buried". No idea where the ט comes from... AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I might have found the answer. I couldn't find a root starting with ט in the Hebrew section of Segal and Dagut's dictionary that seemed to mean 'lie' or 'be buried', but I've just thought of using it the other way round, and under 'bury', as well as Template:Hebrew it lists Template:Hebrew, though the closest entry in the Hebrew side is Template:Hebrew, glossed as 'hidden, concealed'. I guess that this is the passive participle (I've never seen it referred to as the Pa'ul, but I don't know why) and the feminine would be Template:Hebrew. I suppose therefore that Template:Hebrew stands for Template:Hebrew, which however would seem to mean 'here is hidden'! Now, why do some cemeteries (or possibly some sects, I'm not sure) use that form for women? --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Words "philosophy" and "religion"

Is there any language that do not differentiate between the words "philosophy" and "religion"? --Mr.K. (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the ancient greek even have a "religion" (in our sense of religion ?)--Radh (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia says yes. +Angr 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

But not to my question. I imagined that in some Asian language the difference was blurred and they would say that "Buddhism is a "philoligion" "or something like that.--Mr.K. (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks certainly had religion, but did they have a word for it? I would expect so. --Tango (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat notorious that there isn't really any word meaning "religion" in the general abstract sense contained in the Hebrew of the Old Testament... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tango is right in that "philosophy" and "religion" in East Asian languages are modern introduced concepts, and there were concepts which encompassed both before the introduction of these concepts. Nevertheless, it was possible to separate the two, though not by the same delineation as we use "philosophy" and "religion" today. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Being "funny looking"

If you are "funny looking", you look like a funny person to be with or you look so strange that people want to laugh?--Mr.K. (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always heard it as the latter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Either meaning is possible, but the second is far more likely, and without some context that points the other way, would always be taken; probably because being funny (i.e. witty) is not normally a property that is immediately visible in a person. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When ColinFine says "far more likely", he means about a billion times more likely. Tempshill (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is the latter, but it isn't necessarily "funny" as in "will make people laugh", it could be "funny" as in "weird" or "unusual" (there is overlap between the definitions, of course). --Tango (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Funny" is a compliment about someone's personality, while "funny looking" is a pejorative claim about someone's appearance. This is the fact that explains the junior-high joke "You're funny... [pause] -looking!" -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A common way of explaining the different meanings of "funny" are "funny ha ha" and "funny peculiar". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Then there's FLK, or Funny looking kid.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The word lookism recently entered the OED, and is defined as discriminating against a person based on their looks, i.e. looking 'funny'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See Physical attractiveness stereotype. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of BIOS

How is BIOS pronounced? Specifically, is the S voiced or voiceless? In other words, does the second syllable rhyme with nose or with gross? +Angr 13:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always pronounced it By-oss (oss as in Oscar) - X201 (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this depends on culture, but where I live (US, Midwest) we pronounce it with a hard O, By-ose (ose as in toes). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I live in Toronto and I also pronounce it with oss as in Oscar, paralleling both the mainframe and the personal computer usage of DOS. --Anonymous, 16:37 UTC, May 26, 2009.

I agree with Anonymous; that is the pronunciation I learned elsewhere in Ontario. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Parallelling words like kudos, which in my experience is always /kʲudɐs/ but I believe Americans are inclined to pronounce /kʲudoʊz/ and reanalyse as a plural. --ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm British and I've always pronounced it (and heard it pronounced) like the "os" in "Oscar". --Tango (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like A Quest, I live in the U.S. Midwest, and I've heard the o pronounced both ways (although we may be talking about three ways, since I pronounce it as /ɔ/, whereas I pronounce the first vowel in "Oscar" as /ɑ/), but I've never heard the final consonant pronounced as /z/. Deor (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My IPA isn't very good, but I pronounce them the same, I think as /ɔ/. Oscar with a /ɑ/ sounds like an American accent to me. --Tango (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The question doesn't seem to be about the vowels, rather the final s. I've always pronounced it with a voiceless /s/. This, rather than a vowel change, distinguishes it from the plural of bio. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They're not really separable in British English. I can't think of an example of final '-os' pronounced like 'gross', even for foreign words and acronyms. It may be different in American. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this, it's /baɪ.oʊs/ (my emphasis).--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we're, at least in part, talking at cross purposes here. Angr (the OP), as well as the source supplied by el Aprel immediately above (and probably Aeusoes1), suggest that the second syllable of BIOS should be pronounced to rhyme with gross, whereas many people (myself, X201, Anonymous, ColinFine, and Tango) pronounce it to rhyme with floss. So far, A Quest For Knowledge is the only person who rhymes it with toes. (I apologize if I've misrepresented anyone.) There seems to be a significant variation in the pronunciation of the vowel, but perhaps not so much in the pronunciation of the final consonant. Deor (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "gross" probably describes how I pronounce it better. ("Toes" has a bit of a "z" when I say it. I was thinking of the vowel sound and "toes" was the first thing that enter my mind.)

"Gross" is perhaps a bad example to use. Some people (most in my experience) pronounce it to rhyme with "dose", others to rhyme with "dross", "floss", "cross" etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I was asking because wikt:BIOS just gives "bye-ose" as the pronunciation, and I didn't know whether to interpret that as /ˈbaɪoʊs/ or /ˈbaɪoʊz/. But it seems that /ˈbaɪɒs/ is another option. I'll change the Wiktionary entry to "/ˈbaɪoʊs/, /ˈbaɪɒs/". +Angr 06:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always pronounced it as (and heard it as) /'baiɔs/, both in the UK and in Asian countries. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes

If a pen, say, belongs to someone is it "someones pen" or "someone's pen"? ie. is "someones" a possessive pronoun in its own right, or is "someone's" a personal pronoun with a possessive suffix? --Tango (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the latter. The pen belonging to someone is "someone's pen". I don't think "someones" has any grammatical warrant, unless you're talking about a "special someone" who turns out to be "several special someones". That's pretty colloquial, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Except for "his, hers, its", you always need an apostrophe to describe the possessive/genitive in English, AFAIK. Corrections/additions are always welcome. :) --Kjoonlee 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ours, theirs, yours seem to be a bit different. --Kjoonlee 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No personal possessive pronouns take an apostrophe. The standard forms are: my, your, his, her, its, our and their (This is my book, your book, our book, its appearance, etc). The attributive versions are mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours and theirs. (These books are mine, yours, his, hers, ours, theirs, etc.) It's possible to use "its" attributively, but it's rare - That bone is its, where "it" refers to a dog, for example. This explains why "its" only ever takes an apostrophe when it's used as an abbreviation of "it is" or "it has". "It's" is a completely different word than "its", with a completely different meaning, hence it's spelled differently. Words such as someone, anyone, something, and anything are not classified as personal pronouns, so they take apostrophes when used possessively. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They are actually indefinite pronouns, but it's true that they always take an apostrophe in possessives, as in, for example, "Is this meerkat anyone's?". They don't count as possessive pronouns. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So personal pronouns have separate possessive versions, so there are no apostrophes, but there are no possessive forms of indefinite pronouns so they have to be formed with the standard suffix? If there any reason for that difference between the definite and indefinite pronouns? --Tango (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Like the whole sorry mess that is the apostrophe in English spelling, it grew up by a combination of usage, analogy, and arbitrary fiat. The "'s" derives from an Old English genitive in '-es' that only applied to some classes of nouns. It was generalised, and somewhere along the way the spelling was standardised to "'s" in the singular, "s'" in the plural. (I've not seen an account of how that distinction arose). The personal possessives are also in origin genitive forms, and here we can see that only some of them end in 's'. (Incidentally, "its" was invented in late Middle English: previously "his" was used). Beyond the fact that "his" is not simply an extension of "he", and so it would not make sense to use an apostrophe in it, I don't know of any principled reason why none of the personal pronouns take apostrophes: it's simply how it is. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See Saxon genitive. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"It was generalised, and somewhere along the way the spelling was standardised to "'s" in the singular, "s'" in the plural. (I've not seen an account of how that distinction arose)." Surely it is not s' in the plural, but 's with the s dropped if the word already ends in an s? It's really just like a/an: you add or eliminate a letter to make things sound better. You don't go from cats -> catss' pyjamas (which would be adding s'), you might go from cats -> cats's pyjamas, but that is generally considered incorrect because it sounds wrong and isn't what people say. So you go from cats -> cats' pyjamas, with the ' showing the possessive without adding the extra s that you wouldn't say. The pyjamas of cats -> the cats' pyjamas. The pyjamas of the cat -> the cat's pyjamas. 80.41.18.94 (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 27

Is there a more formal term than op-ed?

I authored an op-ed in a software development magazine and want to include it on my resume. Is there a more formal term than op-ed? Op-ed 'feels' right to me, but this is for my résumé, so I'm wondering if I should use a more formal term. I don't like "opinion" because that just doesn't sound very impressive. I don't think I should use "article" as that might be misleading. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the terms "opinion piece", "featured opinion", and even the dubious "freelance editorial" used, but as far as I know, op-ed is the standard term. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Op-ed really probably is the best term. You might consider "guest editorial" or "guest column" if you think they apply. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not "editorial" -- an editorial is written by the newspaper's editorial board. If you don't like "op-ed," you can say "opinion piece." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They're just called "Opinion [articles]" in Australian newspapers, I believe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would go with "op-ed", everyone knows what it means and there is no ambiguity. If you try and find another phrase it is likely to be either unwieldy or ambiguous. --Tango (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't the slightest idea what it meant, even in the context of the question, until I looked at the linked article. Is this a US thing, or am I just ignorant? --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm British, and it is a fairly common term here. Perhaps you are just ignorant! --Tango (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's usually an American term. Tango is just unusually worldly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing word definitions

I want to change the current "common parlance"-->"idiom" situation here at wikipedia. They are not synonyms. "Common parlance" is really just a fancy equivalent of "ordinary speech" according to a college English professor (retired), and I had wanted to place it as a sense antonym of "jargon", which would not MAKE sense at present. Can anyone help with standards to get this done.Julzes (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the redirect for common parlance try discussing this at Talk:Common parlance or Talk:Idiom and if you come to consensus or receive no objection, be WP:Bold. Bear in mind wikipedia is not a dictionary so you'd need to find an appropriate redirect or create one that is a suitable wikipedia article and not a dictionary entry Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Inventing new verbs with prepositions

Today, someone told me to "kill off" and I know that he meant to go away and scram because there was an altercation there and he didn't want me to be there. This definition isn't in the dictionary {http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/kill+off] [2].

Several months ago one of my commanders in the U.S. Army told me that the consequences of not making it to an appointment would be that I would get "scuffed up." He meant that I would get reprimanded or punished. This definition isn't in the dictionary either. [3]

What the heck? Are these guys just morons making up new terms? Am I wrong? Is there a rule for affixing prepositions to verbs to make up new words? --70.196.101.7 (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard scuffed up used in that sense before, I would understand it more in the sense of a beating or similar 'unofficial' punishment or perhaps some sort of of corporal punishment. E.g [4] Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've heard "scuff up" used to refer to marring the finish on something. (A scuff is a mark left by scraping.) The commander could be using "to be scuffed up" as a metaphor, meaning your disciplinary record will be marred. I've never heard "kill off" used as an imperative. (I've heard it used in contexts like "an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs".) I have heard "fuck off", "piss off", "sod off", "bugger off", etc. The first word in such constructs is invariably a profanity, usually with rude sexual connotations. The person using "kill off" may have bowdlerized the phrase, using a euphemism to make it a little less rude/profane. - 128.104.112.106 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I would dispute that people who make up new terms are morons. Perhaps they are bravely leading the way. Tempshill (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries describe the language, they don't prescribe (or at least, modern dictionaries don't attempt to, though some people choose to believe that they do so) - and they always lag behind. The two examples you quoted appear to have been neologisms - maybe the only time they have ever been used, maybe they are already standard among some community. The speakers may have been using phrases already known to them, they may have been creatively inventing new ones, they may have just got their words mixed up: we can't tell. But from what you've told us, there's no reason to conclude they are morons. Since you understood them, they would appear to satisfy one of the primary purposes of language: communication. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

E Prime

How would you say, "I can't talk right now, I'm eating dinner," in E-Prime? There doesn't seem to be any real "Englishy" way out of that present progressive. Thanks, 84.97.254.68 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Must be getting on in my years... Remind me, what's E-Prime, again? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Conveniently, there's an encyclopedia just around the corner: E-Prime. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"I can't talk and eat dinner at the same time"? "Eating dinner prevents me from talking right now"? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Going by the Alice in Wonderland example in the article: "I can't talk right now; I eat dinner." Although I fail to see how eliminating the present progressive and replacing it with the simple present (if I have that right) makes a better result or leads to greater clarity of thought. [The previous sentence brought to you, with great difficulty, in E-Prime]. 80.41.18.94 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe, "I can't talk right now, eating dinner." I agree with 80.41.18.94; whoever proposed E-Prime, has thrown out the baby with the bath water and eliminated "to be" even where it is used functions as an auxiliary verb. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I played with that version, but it doesn't seem in the spirit of E-Prime. You've just elided the verb 'to be'; it is still assumed to be there, functioning I still assume it exists for the sentence to work. Otherwise we could just say "Can't talk; eating."

What about "When eating dinner, a state in which I currently exist, I cannot talk."? Clarity! :P 80.41.18.94 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Version of Word

I would like to know a scientific version of the term: "someone who knows a psychologist". I know it won't be pretty, but any help is appreciated. RefDeskAnon (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean a coinage formed from Greek and Latin roots (some scientific terminology is formed from Greek and Latin roots, but so is a fair amount of non-scientific terminology). If you're satisfied with a mixed Greek and Latin word, it would be easy to toss something rough-and-ready together with cognoscens, but if you insist on an all-Greek word then it would be more difficult... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Description of pictures, phrasing problems

Resolved

 – Equendil Talk 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm uploading a series of pictures on Commons, and since I totally hate the usually sorely lacking descriptions of pictures uploaded there, I was trying to come up with a proper routine to fill in the description field, I was going for "<Name of picture>, <drew/painted/taken> by <author> [in date], representing <subject>, conserved at <museum/whatever>, reproduced by <whoever produced the actual digital copy>.". I'm not quite sure the phrasing is quite right however, in particular I'm thinking "conserved" - while not entirely incorrect - might not be what an English speaking person would naturally say. So right now, I'm wondering if "kept at" or "held at" might be better, possibly "in" instead of "at" ? I'm not entirely sure "reproduced" conveys the right idea either. Could use some advice. Equendil Talk 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"currently in the collection of" or simply "in"; "photographed by..." (if a photo), "scan produced by..." etc. "Reproduction" and "copy" would have a specific meaning in relation to a work of art such as a painting or a sculpture and would not usually include photographing the work. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Made me realise I should change my plan and use more specialised templates with adequate fields. Equendil Talk 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whence came Jessica?

This graph shows a rather strange distribution regarding the name Jessica. Until the 1960s, Jessica was a very uncommon name in the US, then surged in popularity in the 1960s, reached a peak (most popular) in the 1980s and then started a sharp decline (though according to our article, it's still quite popular in the UK). The decline probably has much to do with the hugeness of the peak; every class in my elementary school had a Jessica in it; people probably started getting sick of it. But what drove that sharp increase? Was there some famous starlet that inspired everybody? A popular book? Sexy rabbit? Damn, who'd have thought "Jessica Rabbit" would need a DAB page. Matt Deres (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)